Looking at Atlanta's current depth chart, newly acquired Melky Cabrera is in left field, Nate McLouth is in center, and Matt Diaz is in right field. Buried four players down at right field is Braves super prospect Jason Heyward. Heyward enters the 2010 season at number one on MLB.com's Top 50 Prospects List. By the end of March, that depth chart could see some drastic changes. The possible future face of the Braves is also the possible starting right fielder for the 2010 season.

According to David O'Brien's Braves blog, Heyward enters the rapidly approaching 2010 Spring Training with an opportunity to win the right field job. As Bobby Cox said, Heyward is essentially skipping Triple-A if he's on the Braves roster to begin the season. Heyward has played a total of three games at the Triple-A level. Three. Those three games bring him to a total of fifty games played above Single-A. Heyward hasn't had much minor league seasoning at the levels that matter most. But that hasn't stopped him from projecting as a good player. According to the MLB.com scouting report, Heyward, a left-handed hitter, can hit lefties, possesses the abilities to hit for average and power, and can run well. Add that to his fielding ability and Braves officials call him a complete player.

Robinson Cano isn't a terrific fielding second baseman, but something suggests he isn't as bad as what has been said.

My visual take of Robinson Cano's fielding is that he can sometimes slouch it or overextend himself on an batted ball that is definitely playable. But I haven't seen him play that much nor wasn't too attentive of him defensively. Maybe he limits himself each season, and that is why he has had the same fielding percentage for the past four seasons? I could be wrong.

Stats from BB-Ref and Fangraphs.

It looks like Daniel Cabrera - the tall, formerly hard-throwing, always on the cusp of turning the corner and dominating, pitcher - is still kicking around, having signed a minor league deal with the Chicago White Sox. As an Orioles fan, I must admit that there where times when I was fooled by a great start here or there, and thought that Cabrera was really going to harness his immense potential and turn into a top-of-the-rotation starter. It just never happened - at least for more than a couple games at a time.

D-Cab was rushed to the big leagues in 2004 as a 23 year-old with only 27.1 innings above A-Ball under his belt. He held his own though, finishing with a 12-8 record and a 5.00 ERA.

It was his second year that people probably kept coming back to in later years as something Cabrera could accomplish. In 2005 Daniel went just 10-12, but his ERA improved to 4.52. He utilized a blazing fastball (averaging around 96 mph) and a hard slider (~87 mph) to up his strike-out rate from 4.6 K/9 in his rookie season to 8.8 K/9. He also cut his walks from 5.4 BB/9 to a still bad (but better!) 4.8 BB/9, and increased his groundball rate from 43% to 53%. That resulted in a drop in his home runs rate, so whereas he was a bit fortunate in 2004 (5.10 FIP, 5.68 xFIP), in 2005 his production according to FIP (4.04) was pretty much spot-on (4.02 xFIP). That sophomore season, in which Daniel posted 2.9 WAR, turned out to be the pinnacle of his career, instead of a stepping-stone to greater things (as it seemed at the time).

In 2006 Cabrera upped his strike-out rate again, to 9.55 K/9. That placed him in some pretty good company (pitchers with at least 100 IP):

Francisco Liriano - 10.71 K/9
Scott Kazmir - 10.14 K/9
Cole Hamels - 9.86 K/9
Ben Sheets - 9.85 K/9
Jake Peavy - 9.56 K/9
Daniel Cabrera - 9.55 K/9
Johan Santana - 9.44 K/9
Pedro Martinez - 9.29 K/9

His control regressed though, to a 6.32 BB/9 rate that was easily the worst in the league (amongst pitchers with 100 IP again). The groundballs turned back into flyballs - and line-drives - and while his FIP only went up to 4.20, his xFIP was at 4.56. That's still decent for a 25 year-old in his third pro season - and at 2.7 WAR he was still a fine contributor behind Erik Bedard in the rotation - but the warning signs weren't good. That off-season people were hanging their hopes on his final start, in which Cabrera pitched a complete game one-hitter (taking a no-no into the 9th) in Yankee Stadium and gave up just one unearned run, while walking two and K'ing 5. "You just wait until next year, when he'll do that every time out!"

Rick Thurman, the agent for Tim Lincecum, is saying that he and the Giants are going to go to arbitration to settle their salary dispute. Lincecum, as you may know, submitted $13MM as his desired salary, and the Giants countered with $8MM. Now, the $13MM that Lincecum asked for is a record among first-time eligibles, but you won't find many people who think he doesn't deserve it. You know his resume - consecutive 220+ inning Cy Young seasons where he led the league in strikeouts, allows barely 7 hits per 9, only .4 HR/9, and walks just over 3 per 9. In short, he's the complete power pitcher - durable and supremely talented. Plus, he's going to be 26 next year. So he's got that going for him, which is nice. What could be going against him, though, that could cause him to lose the hearing? I'm of the opinion that he's worth the $13MM and then some - FanGraphs values him at $37MM - but I'd like to play Giants' advocate for a second here, and examine the evidence that they could present in their favor.

First and foremost, look at that delivery. I know that his delivery is in all likelihood beneficial for him, helping to effectively distribute the weight and force and getting everything to move at the same time. But it's different and weird and I'm guessing that the Giants could play that up to an arbitrator who may regard Lincecum's parting of ways with convention the same way that Murray Chass treats UZR/150. Plus, even if his delivery enables him to throw as hard as he does, the Giants could argue that his high velocity - particularly when combined with his diminutive stature - could put undue stress on his ligaments and put him at greater risk of injury. It's no secret that young pitchers aren't exactly the most stable investment around, so any added injury risk would diminish Lincecum's value.

Of course, it might be rather tough to argue that a guy who's made 33 and 32 starts in the past two years has durability issues. But Lincecum has missed a start with back inflammation, and back issues tend to linger - particularly, the Giants will say, when a pitcher has an unconventional motion like Lincecum does. Plus, there's the issue of the Sports Illustrated cover story on him awhile ago, wherein it was revealed that he'll pop a backflip with no provocation, and doesn't ice his arm after starts. Neither of these things are bad in and of themselves, but the Giants could argue that such behavior demonstrates a carelessness that could negatively impact his future performance.

I've been emphasizing this, because a typical arbitration tactic of looking at comparable players and basing a decision off of what those guys earn isn't really favorable for the Giants, as Lincecum stacks up favorably to CC Sabathia and Johan Santana, who both make ~$23MM (CC earns a touch more than Johan, because why not?). But if they want to test the limits of selectivity, they could point out that Lincecum's most comparable pitcher through age 25 is Roy Oswalt, who received a 550% increase in salary in arbitration. Such an increase for Lincecum would mean an award of $3,300,000. Clearly, this isn't a strong argument for a couple reasons, chief among them being inflation and the fact that Lincecum is better. But even adjusted for inflation and talent, it'd be hard to justify a $10MM differential between Lincecum and Oswalt as a reward for the first three seasons of their careers.

Now like I said, I think Lincecum deserves more than $13MM, and he's got a much stronger case than the Giants. But maybe the arbitrator will be loath to award the record-setting amount for fear of perpetuating the precedent that younger players have been setting in recent years. Arbitration awards have been getting bigger as younger players have been getting better, and the arbitrator might want to stop the bleeding, as it were. And, really, that's the best hope the Giants have for getting an $8MM decision - that, or hoping that they're the only ones who actually show up to the hearing.

UPDATE: Buster Olney is saying the 10-year deal report is untrue, and Jon Heyman believes that the deal will be for seven or eight years instead, and worth ~$180 million. -- Zach

Early reports are in that the Twins have signed All-World catcher Joe Mauer to a 10-year deal. The money is as of yet unknown, though presumably it's a fairly hefty sum. The first thought that springs to mind upon hearing '10-year deal' is, of course, Alex Rodriguez's blockbuster 10-year/$252MM deal signed in 2001 – and then the 10-year deal he just signed in 2008 that will pay him $275MM through 2017. Now, Rodriguez has actually earned the money that has been thrown in his direction, as he's been one of the most productive – and, almost as importantly, durable – players in the game during his career. But despite that precedent – inasmuch as one player represents a useful precedent – I don't think I like this deal.

Look, clearly Mauer is one of the best hitters in the game – he's in the discussion with Albert Pujols and...well, it's a short list. You could make arguments for Rodriguez or Chase Utley, I suppose, but the point is, Mauer is in like a new stratosphere of 'elite.' And his numbers last season - .365/.444/.587, all league-best – and three batting titles, while remarkable on their own, become something special when you remember he's a catcher. He could very well be the best offensive catcher to ever strap on the tools of ignorance, and it's not like he's a slouch with the glove, either. Basically, he's got the kind of talent that makes baseball in general more fun.

But here's the thing – 10 years is a lo-o-ng time. He'll be 37 by the time this contract runs out...and catchers don't often stay too terribly productive by that age (though if this offseason was any indication, he'll be able to eke out 1 (or 2!) year deals for a couple years after that contract runs out). Furthermore, he's 6'5'', which serves to increase the already estimable stress that catching places on his legs, and he's already had back problems. What I'm saying is, while he's easily one of – if not the – best players in the game, he doesn't profile like a guy to whom I'd feel comfortable offering a 10-year deal, especially if he's forced into DHing for the last four or five years.

Now, is this a good thing for Twins fans? Of course. They get to keep their star. And it means that we don't have to deal with potential handwringing about the Yankees or Red Sox snapping him up and thereby embodying everything that's wrong with baseball and probably also the free market in general, which is a blessing. I'm just thinking that after 5 or 6 years, that contract is going to start to look like a liability – which is especially problematic for a budget-conscious team like the Twins. While I applaud GM Bill Smith for the short-term benefits he'll reap, and fervently hope that Mauer remains as otherworldly good as he was last year, I'm worried that he's going to regret this deal down the road.

The Reds decided they were gonna get busy today, so they traded CF Willy Taveras (since DFA'd) and IF Adam Rosales to the A's for 2B Aaron Miles, then signed SS Orlando Cabrera for $3MM. It's a nifty little series of moves that shores up one of the Reds' biggest needs – middle infield depth, particularly at shortstop – at little cost. Miles will make $2.7MM this season, $1MM of which will be paid by the Cubs; in essence, the Reds are paying $4.7MM for a couple of useful enough infield guys. Consider that Willy Taveras was going to make $4MM, and he's awful, and there wasn't room for him in the Reds' outfield anyway, and we're left with the fact that the Reds essentially paid $700,000 to make themselves a better team.

How much better? Well, Mr. Taveras was worth -0.3 wins last season. So the Reds literally could have plucked anyone from AA or AAA and he would've probably been better than Taveras was. Which is fun. Mr. Miles is primarily a second baseman, and a fairly average one in the field, at that. He was even worse than Taveras last season, though, being worth a full 1.3 wins below replacement level – a remarkable feat, really. But he was worth 2.1 wins in 2008, where he had about twice as many PA as last season. So his true talent level is somewhere in the middle there – either way, he should make a positive contribution for very little cost. Mr. Cabrera is an above-average shortstop with a great pedigree of health – which is important, since he's going to need that good health to avoid the curse that Barry Larkin's spirit has apparently placed upon the knees of Reds shortstops (Gonzalez also missed nearly a month with a bone bruise in the same knee). He's only marginally above average, having been worth 0.7 wins cumulatively in the last three seasons, but he's got a useful glove and should at least bring some depth.

Does it really matter, in the short term? Eh, not really. The Reds certainly have talent on the squad, and if their stable of high ceiling young pitchers pans out to even something resembling their collective talent level, they will be contenders in the near future. Right now, though, they're probably not talented enough to compete with the Cubs and Cardinals of the world, and adding low-impact guys like Miles and Cabrera certianly won't change that. But, smart thinking like this shows that they're at least on the right track – commendable for an organization that prominently features Dusty Baker.

This kind of stuff makes me sad. Sad, that I have to write about this. It isn't something that should need to be done. But, alas, it happens.

What am I talking about? Blogger plagiarism. I haven't read about a real case of this in a long time. But, last night, something came across my twitter client. Our very own Daniel Moroz posted something called "Blogger Ethics", and of course I had to read it. It is a hard article to quote and get the point across, but I'm going to try:

You know what I really don’t like? When someone passes other peoples’ work of as their own – and also tries to sell it. It’s just generally wrong behavior. When a blogger does it, it gives every online writer who takes their work seriously and puts real time and effort into it a bad name. When an Orioles’ blogger does it, it hits closer to home. When an Orioles’ blogger does it, and one of my readers brings it to my attention and notes that he got to the offending site through a link on my blog, I really get upset. The blog I’m referring to is OriolesProspects.com. Started by Jordan fairly recently, it has scouting reports of various O’s prospects and occasional posts weighing in on minor league matters. Though some of the writing looked familiar to me – and I saw a few people make similar claims – I largely ignored it. But when it became the case that I was even passively condoning plagiarism (as the reader called it), I could not in good conciseness ignore it any further. I really, really don’t like doing this, but I think it’s important.

[...]

The internet surely allows everyone the freedom to express themselves and have their own voice, and I think that Jordan can be a contributor in the Orioles community. That is made much harder when you start things off in the way he did. You lose credibility and respect. My inclination is to give him a break for his age, but the influence he was trying to draw for himself negates that. If one wants to play in this league, so to speak, one needs to be able to handle the responsibilities that go along with. Pitchers in the majors don’t just lob them in there for rookie batters, after all.

I contacted Jordan about the issue and he at first claimed that he wasn’t doing it. He claimed to have attended many games himself, took notes, etc, etc. When I mentioned three scouting reports as particular offenders – the first three I looked at, by the way – he immediately said he’d take them down (which wasn’t done). At that point there was much hand-wringing about feeling bad about possibly having done something wrong (unintentionally, or so he said) and not wanting to offend the Orioles blogging community. I told him that he needed to take that stuff down, but that it could be a growing experience for him if he wrote a post admitting his mistake and correcting his behavior. I was told this would be done, and it finally was today (after a couple of days of knowing he had plagiarized material on his site – and continuing to post other things but not taking the offending stuff down). I realize it’s very hard to admit when you’re wrong, but in a case like this it’s pretty clear to me that honesty is expected and not a bonus.

Wow. It's a lot to take in, I know. But, later, Daniel shows us the exact players that had plagiarism in their scouting report, and it's pretty convincing that it was stolen.

Why does this affect me? One, because I'm a blogger and this is the business I'm in. It matters. The second, is because I was planning on giving Oriole Prospects some hype. I was going to do a little critique of a prospect guide he put out and review it on BDD, a big time site. Obviously, this isn't happening anymore. Nothing could make me want to do it.

The real point here, is this: Blogging is about the sharing of ideas, difference of opinions, and everyone learning something. It may not seem like it all of the time, but it is. Plain and simple. If someone is stealing someone's work, and using it as their own, what's the point? What does anyone gain from it? Nothing, that's what.

This is the kind of thing that leads people to not respect bloggers. Everyone assumes there are no ethics or code in place, but there is. You don't take others work and pass it off as your own. You just don't. There is no excuse for it, and never will be.

I admit, this is harsh to piggyback on someone else's criticism and add my own. But it deserves it, and I'm more than willing to look like the bad guy here. It doesn't bother me.

Today the Tampa Bay Rays signed Matt Bush. The best adjective I can think of to describe Bush is: former. He's a former #1 pick, former Padres shortstop prospect, former Padres pitching prospect, former Tommy John patient, former Blue Jays reclamation project, former assault perpetrator, former drunk driver, and former assault perpetrator. And, yes, he's been brought up on assault charges twice – including once for assaulting high schoolers.

On the baseball field, things don't get much better for him. People had high expectations for his career, not only because he was drafted first overall, but also because he was drafted ahead of talents like Stephen Drew, Jered Weaver, and Jeff Niemann, all of whom were near-universally regarded as better prospects (and let's not forget that Justin Verlander went second overall). A slick-fielding shortstop with a cannon arm, Bush was a project, to be sure, but the tools were there for him to succeed. He just never developed them...but such is the way with projects.

As an 18-year old in 2004, Bush made his debut in rookie ball...and OPS'd .538. And then got promoted to short season ball...and OPS'd .572. So, yeah, there was improvement, and hey, he was only 18. The next season, he got nearly 500 at-bats in Fort Wayne (hence why he's notable to me), but managed a .555 OPS. He struck out more than twice as often as he walked, and wasn't much on the basepaths (8 for 12). His defensive gifts even seemed to abandon him, as he committed a rather astonishing 38 errors. He was well on his way to another disappointing season for Fort Wayne - .659 OPS – when he broke his ankle, missing the remainder of the season. In 2007, he posted a .587 OPS through May, when the Padres decided it was time for a change, and made him a pitcher.

Everyone knows the Yankees are, like, baseball's villains what with the inflated payroll and all-star lineup and odious ownership and polarizing players and blah blah blah. However, they made a move today that appears to be them turning their back on everything that makes them the Yankees: they're signing Randy Winn.

This is, keep in mind, the same Randy Winn who hit a whopping .262/.318/.353 for the Giants last season. The same Randy Winn who, as Jay Jaffe tweeted earlier, hit .158/.184/.200 against LHP last season – worst ever from 1954-present. The same Randy Winn who is going to be 36 and hasn't OPS'd over .800 since 2005. The same Randy Winn whose only value, at this point, is the fact that he's a good defender – though only in the corners, where the Yankees already have Brett Gardner and Nick Swisher. Oh, not to mention a guy they could've had – Johnny Damon.

This signing pretty clearly means that the Yankees aren't going to bring Damon back for another year or two, which isn't unreasonable given that he was rumored to be demanding 3 years and $30MM. To give him that deal would undoubtedly be a poor deal for most teams...but it's well-established that the Yankees are not most teams. They likely wanted Damon on a 1-year deal what with Carl Crawford becoming a free agent next year, which would require more money to compensate for the short length, but what stops them from breaking the budget to sign him? They don't lose draft picks – only money, of which they've plenty.

So why would they sign Winn (1.7 WAR) instead of Damon (3 WAR)? Why demonstrate fiscal responsibility when you're a ~$200MM payroll team who's the favorite to win the World Series? Why save, say, $8MM for a minor defensive upgrade in left field, one of the least demanding defensive positions in the game? It feels weird to kill a team for not spending money unreasonably, but reason goes out the window when you talk about the Yankees. They're downgrading for no real (performance-related) reason, and I can't understand why.

In his latest column, Buster Olney provides two ways to "fix" the amateur draft that MLB is discussing:

• There is talk about structuring draft budget according to the place of finish. So, for example (and to be clear, these numbers are my own hypothetical), the worst team would have $10 million, the second-worst team would have $9.75 million, the third-worst $9.5 million, etc. This way, the big-market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't be in position to overpay middle-round picks, as Boston did to lure Ryan Westmoreland away from Vanderbilt.
  
• There was some discussion about having the ability to either trade draft picks or trade the rights to spend money on picks. This way, teams would be in position to recoup the value of a pick even if they didn't want to pay a player in that position. Say, for example, that the Nationals didn't want to take the No. 1 pick for themselves. Under the idea that is being discussed, they would either be able to trade the pick, or perhaps trade some of their allotted slot money in the draft.

I'm all for idea number one, but there needs to be some sort of flexibility or MLB funding. What happens if the team doesn't have the same amount of money to spend as their budget? Are they going to essentially be penalized for only having $8MM in the bank to spend on the draft, but being allowed to spend $10MM? I think they would be, because their slot does them no good at that point.

I always get excited around draft time for the NBA and NFL, because of all the trades that can go down. With the MLB draft, I feel nothing. It's so boring. Adding in the ability to trade picks would create excitement and throw a new wrinkle into trade talks in the offseason or at the deadline. That way, a team without tremendous prospects could trade for bigger players by simply throwing in a pick or two instead of another prospect.